These notes were written in partial preparation for teaching a class
for Steve Portigal to undergraduates in CCS. This is the first draft.

Telling Tales From the Field: Ethnography, Design and Why Who You Are Matters

The class
In this class, I will give a very brief introduction and background to
my views on ethnographic work and its place in design – I have some
notes below to introduce you to ethnography and design work.

After a short introduction, the majority of the time in the class will
be in discussion around central topics, using the results from the
exercise (see below) you bring to the class. We will review your “tales
from the field” - considering central concepts such as “the
ethnographic eye”; participant/observer, known and unknown
investigators, degree of embeddedness, and roles; notions of “data
site”; issues of access to data sites; data recording methods;
elaboration of “units of analysis”; framing, perspective, data
extrapolation and generalization; objective/subjective and
impressionistic analysis; reflexive analysis; rhetoric; and legal,
ethical issues in conducting fieldwork.

Class Exercise

To have content for discussion, before the class I’d like you to think
about checkout lines. Please spend some time thinking about checkout
lines – I’d like you to observe at least one checkout line and come to
the class prepared to tell us what you know about checkout lines – and
how you know it. Your task in the class will be to explain to others
what it is like to be in a checkout line, and in the checkout line(s)
you have considered. We will be reading and sharing these stories and
using them to reflect on important issues in carrying out
ethnographically inspired fieldwork.

Introduction: What is Ethnography?

Ethnography as a method is historically associated with the discipline
of anthropology. Ethnography literally means “writing the culture”. In
more recent years we have increasingly heard of ethnography in design
circles as a method that is being used to inform us about the use of
existing designed objects (e.g., technologies, environments, consumer
commodities), and to inspire us about new design possibilities and how
their adoption may fit in with what people already do (their
“practices”). Many such studies are fairly short term and are focused
on deriving inspirations for products or processes that will in fact
change people’s practices.
As the term ethnography implies, traditionally ethnographies are
carried out to really reflect what is going on in a cultural setting
and typically take a long time. Thus, to acknowledge that fieldwork
ethnographies are often (but not always) fairly shallow, I refer to
fieldwork in most design contexts to be ethnographically “inspired” or
“oriented”.

The basic method of carrying out an ethnography is to observe in a
natural setting – to watch what people do, to listen to what they say,
to observe the setting in which they do it over time, and to thus come
to some understanding of how the social order comes about and is
maintained. When people talk of “doing fieldwork” they typically mean
any observation work that takes place in the setting in which they are
studying – a field worker I talked to recently said they considered
“anything out of my office” to be field work, as they were always
watching and observing. In addition to watching, ethnographic work also
can involve carrying out informal interviews to learn about the setting
and to clarify what one has seen and heard. An ethnographer often feels
like an apprentice in a new world, and uses all the techniques
apprentices use to “get up to speed”, that is to rapidly develop an
understanding of the social setting. Depending on the purpose of the
study, the ethnographer will spend more or less time, will be more or
less involved in the day-to-day lives of the social setting and people
under study and will focus on different things. These “different
things” are what constitute the “units of analysis”. That is, I may
focus on a mobile worker, but be most interested in their use of the
mobile phone to keep in touch with colleagues and customers. To carry
out an ethnography I may follow them (“shadow them”) through their work
day, focusing on them, the situations they are in and the phone – when,
why, where and how it is used. Here, the mobile worker, the phone, the
conversations and the settings are the primary units of analysis. The
weather, what they are wearing are the secondary units of analysis
initially – but may come into more focus if, for example, they are on
foot and it rains constantly such that using the cell phone becomes
impossible. The focus of attention shifts frequently until the
ethnographer gets a real sense or impression of what things are
“constant” and what things are part of the current observed setting but
not common to other settings.

Learning to do good ethnographic work involves learning to see and
hear, and then learning how to speak about or recount what one has seen
and heard. Good ethnographic work takes time, and it takes practice to
carry out deep analyses and summarize those findings to recount the
important findings “faithfully”. The “real” work begins when the
ethnographer leaves the field site and tries to make sense of what they
have seen. And how the research is presented is at least as important
as what is presented. Issues about point of view, voice, style, and
audience have been long considered in the field of “rhetoric” and
narrative studies, and it is important that the ethnographer know that
the way in which they report findings affects what is understood by the
reader/hearer. Being able to reflect on the style of reportage and be
more aware of how we do that is essential – what we are choosing to
highlight and what we choose leave out. In multidisciplinary design
teams, the reader/hearer is often one’s colleague(s). The result of the
discussion may be a process or product change that affects people’s
activities. So, being clear as to framing of reports is very important
– reports can have major consequences in terms of how the setting is
affected should a design based on fieldwork be introduced.

This class will focus on the gathering of data and the reportage of
that data, as a way to introduce concepts that are important in
ethnographically inspired fieldwork for design.

References
–Lofland, J. and Lofland L. (1995) Analyzing Social Settings. A Guide
to Qualitative Observation and Analysis (3rd Edition). USA: Wadsworth
Publishing Company
–Emerson, R.M., Fretz, R.I. and Shaw, L.L. (1995) Writing Ethnographic Field Notes. London, Uk: University of Chicago Press.
–Van Maanen, J. (198 Tales of the Field: On Writing Ethnography.
Chicago Guides to Writing, Editing, and Publishing. Chicago, USA: University of Chicago Press.
– Wolcott, H. F. (1999) Ethnography. A way of seeing. Oxford, Uk: Altamira Press.

So after weeks of thinking about writing a blog, I am stymied.

I (re)discover that I am a curmudgeon. I (re)disocver that I hate
writing. I (re)discover that I have a messy mind that thinks about 10
things in parallel. So, I find I am trying to differentiate what I'd
write for myself, or for a specific audience and what I would write
that would be something of an opinion I'd like to share with random
whoever out there. What is my schtick (and how do you spell schtick
anyway)? What is my angle? What form would I like - Image+text (most
comfortable for me)? Sudden fiction? Academic discourse? Proto-papers?
Thought pieces on the way to punditry? What rhetorical stance should I
take, and how should I organise my site to reflect the differences? Or
should I not bother? More than that, I hate reading poorly written
things that offer unsubstantiated opinions and which don't refer to
relevant literatures. I like rambling opinions to be saved for pub
conversations. Which is why my enjoyment of the blogosphere is limited
to the few people I think can write. I fear that I am not among them -
I have written a few papers I am very proud of, but I always stay close
to the data, and/or to the technology I have helped design/build. I
prefer conversing about things I don't know with those close face to
face or in email, person to person.

In all of this pondering I was shocked to hear a friend had looked at
my sorry state of a blog with my non-entry on feminist fictions and on
4 things (which showed how sadly I am not 'web 2.0' because I was
unsure about who to link to as 4 other bloggers I wouldn't mind
imposing on.). Shocked. Why on earth are you reading this? Should I be
flattered or worried? Why do I care? Actually - do I care?

But reader be warned, there is *no* quality control on my blog. And I
am told that I will loosen up. Oh good, may my blog do what a thousand
therapists (I am joking here) could not do.

And I always need an audience: this post is for Joe.

Finally, I hate this editor. It sucks. So now I suppose I have to work out how to get to use a better one.

Ok,
first thing is to import stuff from "Cyberxee analects", "Xeepiphany"
and "Xeel" my previous marginal use of blogs to collaborate with myself
and others.
 

Rashmi Sinha tagged me to post something to my blog, and I guess Four Things is as good a way to start as any.
Four Jobs I’ve Had
1. Post Office Clerk
2. Promotions and Merchandizing Coordinator
3. Fashion Model
4. Researcher

Four Movies I Can Watch Over And Over
1. Meshes of the Afternoon
2. Dream On (Amber Films)
3. Safe
4. T2

Four Books I recently enjoyed
1. The Companion Species Manifesto
2. The Devil in the White City
3. Death and Material Culture
4. The Secret History of Disco

Four Places I’ve Lived
1. Moubhandar
2. Newcastle-Upon-Tyne
3. Brighton
4. Cambridge

Four TV Shows I Love
1. The Office (UK version)
2. Couples (UK version)
3. Louis Theroux’s Weird Weekends
4. Ali G

Four Places I’ve travelled to or want to
1. Tokyo
2. Seoul
3. Budapest
4. Granada

Four of My Favorite Dishes
1. Sunomono with tako
2. Filet Mignon
3. Prawn Vindaloo
4. Shepherds Pie

Four Sites I Visit Daily
1. news.bbc.co.uk
2. flickr.com
3. NYT
4. engadget

Four Places I Would Rather Be Right Now
1. In the UK with friends
2. On my snowboard, anywhere with powder
3. Eating
4. Looking at the stars

Four Bloggers I’m Tagging
Sadly I don’t think I know four
bloggers well enough to tag them to add to this meme. I will think of
some and update! My personal Web pace is 0.25, not 2.0.

I just started reading Fictions of Feminist Ethnography by Kamala Visweswaran. So far nothing to say much about it. But as a test post this seems to have worked.

Submission for EPIC 2005 Methods PaperTitle: The Diversity of Cyberethnography: Approaches to the Study of Sociality in Virtual Lifescapes

Authors: E.F. Churchill, R. Moore andB. Jordan
Abstract:

If cyberspace is “the total interconnectedness of human beings
through computers and telecommunication without regard to physical
geography”
(Gibson, 1984), then cybersociality lies in the details of engaging,
maintaining and indeed managing this disembodied, mediated
interconnectedness. For ethnographers, for whom seeing, observing,
recording and analyzing patterns of activity across and through time
is the very foundation of understanding sociality, such
disconnectedness is more than Gergen’s postmodern fragmentation of the
saturated, information loaded self; it is positively maddening in its
methodological implications (Gergen, 1991). It highlights that humans
live lives beyond our gaze - palpably so - and often actively
operating simultaneously within multiple “social worlds” as they
switch between different mediated engagements (Strauss, 1978).

“Cyberethnography”, by derivation and colloquial extraction, is the
ethnography, the writing of the culture(s) of the computer mediated,
telesociality of the physically disconnected (Gajjala, 2002; Hine,
2000). We have been using ethnographic methods (again, cyber and
otherwise) to paint in the details of interconnection in “global
corporations”, “virtual teams” and “cybercommerce” settings. Unlike
many excellent cyberethnographies which focus solely on life “online”, we have triangulated online and offline observation.

We present highlights from three studies, which lie along a
continuum of ‘cybersociality’ and ‘cybermodification’ possibilities
(i.e.,
offering more or less latitude for modification of the technology, the
virtual experience and therefore, presumably, the social experience).
The first is a study of distributed teams collaborating through video
and digital shared workspaces; the second a study of collaborative
work in a text-based virtual environment where interactions take place
mostly in the virtual environment, but also on occasion, face to face;
and the third, interactions in massively multiplayer environments,
where virtual commerce is growing but where people never meet in
person, always in persona (avatar). In all three cases, we present an
ecology of communication technologies, but focus on those through the
lens of an ecology of flows, spaces, and connection practices - within
the context of the broader social settings within which the
interactions we have observed take place.

We illustrate how, in our studies, an understanding of that which
lies beyond the keyboard and screen frames our understanding of what
takes
place “virtually”. We consider what can be recorded (technically,
ethically and legally); what can be analysed (time, distance, data
complexity issues), and finally what can be reported effectively.

Finally, we reflect on cyberethnography itself. While we have drawn
on data gathering and analysis methods in cyberethnography texts, we
ponder what the prefix ‘cyber’ adds to the encompassing, entirely
worldy word “ethnography”. Ethnography, after all, means to write
culture. We reflect on how questions raised (e.g., what is “the
field” and where it may be found; what are appropriate data for
reflecting sociality in these contexts; what does it mean to get
permission to record from an avatar, one persona of many?) differ from
debates within ethnography as a whole. In our online/offline
ethnographies, have we seen anything that makes us more ‘cyber’ than we were before, or is it just what we have done?

References
Gajjala, R. 2002. An interrupted postcolonial/feminist cyberethnography: complicity and resistance in the ‘cyberfield’.
Feminist Media Studies 2 (2): 177-93.

Gergen, K.J. (1991). The saturated self: Dilemmas of identity in contemporary life. New York: Basic Books.

Gibson, W. (1984) Neuromancer. Ace Books.

Hine, C. 2000. Virtual ethnography. London, Thousand Oaks & New Delhi: Sage.

Strauss, A. (1978). A social worlds perspective. In N. Denzin
(ed.),Studies in Symbolic Interaction, vol. 1, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press,
119–128.

Submission for EPIC 2005: Methods Paper (10 page limit)

Title: The Diversity of Cyberethnography: Approaches to the Study of Sociality in Virtual Lifescapes

Authors: E.F. Churchill, B. Jordan and R. Moore

Abstract:

If cyberspace is “the total interconnectedness of human beings
through computers and telecommunication without regard to physical
geography” (Gibson, 1984), then cybersociality lies in the details of
engaging, maintaining and indeed managing this disembodied, mediated
interconnectedness. For ethnographers, for whom seeing, observing,
recording and analyzing patterns of activity across and through time is
the very foundation of understanding sociality, such disconnectedness
is more than Gergen’s postmodern fragmentation of the saturated,
information loaded self; it is positively maddening in its
methodological implications (Gergen, 1991). It highlights that humans
live lives beyond our gaze - palpably so - and often actively operating
simultaneously within multiple “social worlds” as they switch between
different mediated engagements (Strauss, 1978).

“Cyberethnography”, by derivation and colloquial extraction, is the
ethnography, the writing of the culture(s) of the computer mediated,
telesociality of the physically disconnected (Gajjala, 2002; Hine,
2000). We have been using ethnographic methods (again, cyber and
otherwise) to paint in the details of interconnection in “global
corporations”, “virtual teams” and “cybercommerce” settings. Unlike
many excellent cyberethnographies which focus solely on life “online”,
we have triangulated online and offline observation.

We present highlights from three studies, which lie along a
continuum of ‘cybersociality’ and ‘cybermodification’ possibilities
(i.e., offering more or less latitude for modification of the
technology, the virtual experience and therefore, presumably, the
social experience). The first is a study of distributed teams
collaborating through video and digital shared workspaces; the second a
study of collaborative work in a text-based virtual environment where
interactions take place mostly in the virtual environment, but also on
occasion, face to face; and the third, interactions in massively
multiplayer environments, where virtual commerce is growing but where
people never meet in person, always in persona (avatar). In all three
cases, we present an ecology of communication technologies, but focus
on those through the lens of an ecology of flows, spaces, and
connection practices - within the context of the broader social
settings within which the interactions we have observed take place.

We illustrate how, in our studies, an understanding of that which
lies beyond the keyboard and screen frames our understanding of what
takes place “virtually”. We consider what can be recorded (technically,
ethically and legally); what can be analysed (time, distance, data
complexity issues), and finally what can be reported effectively.

Finally, we reflect on cyberethnography itself. While we have drawn
on data gathering and analysis methods in cyberethnography texts, we
ponder what the prefix ‘cyber’ adds to the encompassing, entirely
worldy word “ethnography”. Ethnography, after all, means to write
culture. We reflect on how questions raised (e.g., what is “the field”
and where it may be found; what are appropriate data for reflecting
sociality in these contexts; what does it mean to get permission to
record from an avatar, one persona of many?) differ from debates within
ethnography as a whole. In our online/offline ethnographies, have we
seen anything that makes us more ‘cyber’ than we were before, or is it
just what we have done?

References
Gajjala, R. 2002. An interrupted postcolonial/feminist
cyberethnography: complicity and resistance in the ‘cyberfield’.
Feminist Media Studies 2 (2): 177-93.

Gergen, K.J. (1991). The saturated self: Dilemmas of identity in contemporary life. New York: Basic Books.

Gibson, W. (1984) Neuromancer. Ace Book.
Hine, C. 2000. Virtual ethnography. London, Thousand Oaks & New Delhi: Sage.
Strauss, A. (1978). A social worlds perspective. In N. Denzin (ed.),
Studies in Symbolic Interaction, vol. 1, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press,
119–128.

Hine, C. 2000. Virtual ethnography. London, Thousand Oaks & New Delhi: Sage.
Strauss, A. (1978). A social worlds perspective. In N. Denzin (ed.),
Studies in Symbolic Interaction, vol. 1, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press,
119–128.

Cyberethography and cybersociality in virtual lifescapes: methods, obstructions and abstractions

Abstract:

If cyberspace is “the total interconnectedness of human beings
through computers and telecommunication without regard to physical
geography” (Gibson, 1984), then cybersociality lies in the details of
engaging, maintaining and indeed managing this disembodied, mediated
interconnectedness, operating simultaneously within multiple “social
worlds” (Strauss, 1978). Reacting to the embrace of graphical
simulation, the emergence of “virtual reality” and the promise of
artificially intelligent agents, Gibson’s dystopian cyber(meaning
helmsman in Greek)space is a simulated structured world where one can
“jack in”, away from this corporeal world.

“Cyberethnography”, by derivation and colloquial extraction, is the
ethnography, the writing of the culture(s) of the computer mediated,
telesociality of the physically disconnected.

We have been using ethnographic methods (cyber and otherwise) to
paint in the details of these acts of interconnection in “global
corporations”, “virtual teams” and “cybercommerce” settings. Unlike
many cyberethnographies (but entirely in keeping with ethnography
unbounded by mediated or physically collocated locales of activity), we
triangulate online and offline observation.

In this paper we present highlights from three studies, which we
believe lie along a continuum of Gibson’s ‘cyberness’, with more or
less latitude for personal agency and modification of the technology
itself to manage the telemediated interaction. The first is a study of
distributed teams collaborating primarily through video and digital
shared workspaces. The second is a study of collaborative work in a
text-based virtual environment where interactions take place mostly in
the virtual environment, but also on occasion, face to face. Finally,
we present interactions in massively multiplayer environments, where
collaboration and commerce are growing, and where control over one’s
presence is entirely in the hands of the individual to the point of
multiple personae with multiple appearances. In all three cases, we
present an ecology of communication technologies, but focus on those
through the lens of an ecology of flows, spaces, and connection
practices - within the context of the broader social settings within
which the interactions we have observed take place.

These studies are used to render visible the often tacit boundaries
of ethnographic data collection methods and reportage. While we draw on
methods in all cases that have been loosely called cyberethnography,
interested as we are in mediated sociality, we illustrate how an
understanding of that which lies beyond the keyboard and screen frames
what is understood. This triangulation drives new forms of data
analysis.

In this paper we consider 1. what can be recorded (logistically, it
is getting increasingly important that we are very technically oriented
to gather our data; many field sites in business contexts create
restrictions that curtail broad data collection; many ethical issues
arise); 2. what can be analysed (time is the biggest constraint in many
business ethnography settings, and this is amplified in studying these
distributed settings), and finally 3. what can be reported (in many
settings what is seen cannot be reported or will not be heard).

References
Gibson, W. (1984) Neuromancer. Ace Book.

Strauss, A. (1978). A social worlds perspective. In N. Denzin (ed.),
Studies in Symbolic Interaction, vol. 1, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press,
119–128.

THANKS for these Gitte - excellent list of references, I want to read several papers right now!

Arthur, Brian
2002 Is the Information Revolution Dead? Business 2.0. March 2002:65-72.
2003 Why Tech Is Still the Future. Fortune Magazine, Monday, Nov. 24.

Baba, M. L., J. Gluesing, H. Ratner, and K. H. Wagner. 2004. The Context of Knowing: Natural History of a Globally Distributed Team. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 25(5), 547-587. (GDT)

Cramton, Catherine Durnell
2002 Attribution in Distributed Work Groups. Pp. 191-212 in Distributed Work, Pamela Hinds and Sara Kiesler, eds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Davey, Theresa, Anastasia Envall, Mark Gernerd, Tiffanne Mahomes, Maria Monroe, Jenna Nowak, Matthew Patricoski, Jacob Weiler
2005 Instant Messaging: Functions of a New Communicative Tool. www.nd.edu/~sblum/Instant Messaging.pdf. [Very interesting paper written by a group of students in an anthro class at Notre Dame University]

David, Ken and J. R. Lloyd
2003 Tools for organizational learning and organizational teaching: Learning and communicating about collaboration in dispersed engineering design projects.” Chapter 21 of Field Book in Collaborative Work Systems, G. Klein and J. Nemiro, eds. Center for the Study of Work Teams, University of North Texas. Jossey-Bass.

Gibson, Cristina B. and Susan G. Cohen, eds.
2003 Virtual Teams that Work: Creating Conditions for Virtual Team Effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Grinter, Rebecca, James D. Herbsleb and Dewayne E. Perry
1999 The Geography of Coordination: Dealing with Distance in R&D Work. GROUP 99: 306-

Herbsleb, James D. and Rebecca E. Grinter
1998 Conceptual Simplicity Meets Organizational Complexity: Case Study of a Corporate Metrics Program. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Software Engineering. Pp. 271-280. Kyoto, Japan: IEEE.

Herbsleb on attribution

Herbsleb and Grinter
1999,
2002

Hind, Pamela and Sara Kiesler, eds.
2002 Distributed Work. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hine, Christine
2000 Virtual Ethnography. London: SAGE.

Jones, Steve., ed.
1999 Doing Internet Research: Critical Issues and Methods for Examining the Net. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Jordan on learning and work

Jordan on diffusion?

Kiesler and Cummings
2002 in Distributed Work, Pamela Hinds and Sara Kiesler, eds.

Kitchin, Rob
1998 Cyberspace: The World in Wires. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Kraut et al
2002 in Distributed Work, Pamela Hinds and Sara Kiesler, eds.

Mannix, Elizabeth, Terri Griffith and Margaret Neale
2002 The Phenomenology of Conflict in Distributed Work Teams. p. 212- 233 in Distributed Work, Pamela Hinds and Sara Kiesler, eds.

Mason, Bruce
2003 Issues in Virtual Ethnography. In: Ethnographic Studies in Real and Virtual Environments: Inhabited Information Spaces and Connected Communities. Proceedings of 1999 Esprit i3 Workshop on Ethnographic Studies, K. Buckner, ed.

Nardi
2002 in Distributed Work, Pamela Hinds and Sara Kiesler, eds.

Olson et al
2002 in Distributed Work, Pamela Hinds and Sara Kiesler, eds.

Ruhleder, Karen and Brigitte Jordan
2001 Co-Constructing Non-Mutual Realities: Delay-Generated Trouble in Distributed Interaction. Journal of Computer Supported Cooperative Work 10:1:113-138.

Suchman on learning + work

Walther on attribution

Wasson, Christina
2004 Multitasking in Virtual Meetings. Human Resource Planning 27(4):47-60.

Weisband, Susan: Maintaining Awareness in Distributed Team Collaboration: Implications for Leadership and Performance. Pp. 311-333 in Distributed Work, Pamela Hinds and Sara Kiesler, eds.

Illusory boundaries in the “cyber-sociality” of virtual teams: ethnographic methods, the offline in the online and cautionary tales of business cyber ethnography.

Abstract:

If cyberspace is “the total interconnectedness of human beings through computers and telecommunication without regard to physical geography” (Gibson, 1984), then cyber-sociality lies in the details of engaging, maintaining and indeed managing this disembodied, mediated interconnectedness, operating simultaneously within multiple “social worlds” (Strauss, 1978). Reacting to the embrace of graphical simulation, the emergence of “virtual reality” and the promise of artificially intelligent agents, Gibson’s dystopian cyber(meaning helmsman in Greek)space is a simulated structured world where one can “jack in”, away from this corporeal world.

“Cyberethnography”, by derivation and colloquial extraction, is the ethnography, the writing of the culture(s) of the computer mediated, tele-sociality of the physically disconnected. We have been using ethnographic methods (cyber and otherwise) to paint in the details of these acts of interconnection in “global corporations”, “virtual teams” and “cybercommerce” settings. Unlike many cyber-ethnographies (but entirely in keeping with ethnography unbounded by mediated or physically collocated locales of activity), we triangulate online and offline observation.

In this paper we present highlights from three case studies, which we believe lie along a continuum of Gibson’s ‘cyber’ness, with more or less latitude for personal agency and modification of the technology itself to manage the tele-mediated interaction. The first is a study of distributed teams collaborating primarily through video conferences and email. The second is a study of collaborative work in a text-based virtual environment where interaction take place mostly online but also face to face. Finally, we present interactions in massively multiplayer environments, where collaboration and commerce are growing, and where control over one’s presence is entirely in the hands of the individual. In all three cases, we present an ecology of communication technologies, but focus on those through the lens of an ecology of flows, spaces, and connection practices - within the context of the broader social settings within which the interactions we have observed take place.

These case studies are used to render visible the often tacit boundaries of ethnographic data collection methods and reportage. While we draw on methods in all cases that have been loosely called “cyber-ethnography”, interested as we are in sociality in mediated situations, we illustrate how an understanding of that which lies beyond the keyboard and screen frames what is understood, and therefore drives new forms of data analysis. Sometimes generating these understandings is positively maddening in its methodological complexity. Humans have always, in fact, lived lives beyond our gaze. But in these studies, we have experienced restrictions at many levels which can be broadly characterized as 1. what can be recorded (logistically, it is getting increasingly important that we are very technically oriented to gather our data; many field sites in business contexts create restrictions that curtail broad data collection; many ethical issues arise); 2. what can be analysed (time is the biggest constraint in many business ethnography settings, and this is amplified in studying these distributed settings), and finally 3. what can be reported (in many settings what is seen cannot be reported or will not be heard).

What does this mean for what we understand of sociality, and what does it mean for reflection of what can and cannot, has and has not been inferred. Ultimately in this paper, we consider what are data, and who owns the data for consent to be given for its collection, analysis and reportage: what does it mean for an avatar, one persona of many even in an organization for example, to grant me permission to record? Just as technology-supported communication generates new work practices, we are experiencing the old phenomena of multiple selves in interaction in new worlds. This paper reflects on the issues involved. Each example will consider 1. the importance for work practice analysis, 2. the need for agility in method, and 3. the importance of deep analysis for patterns over time and technologies.

References
Gibson, W. (1984) Neuromancer. Ace Book.

Strauss, A. (1978). A social worlds perspective. In N. Denzin (ed.), Studies in Symbolic Interaction, vol. 1, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 119–128.

Ramblings for an abstract: bits will come from here

Illusory boundaries in the “cyber-sociality” of virtual teams: ethnographic methods, the offline in the online and cautionary tales of business cyber ethnography.

Abstract:

If cyberspace is “the total interconnectedness of human beings through computers and telecommunication without regard to physical geography” (Gibson, 1984), then cyber-sociality lies in the details of engaging, maintaining and indeed managing this disembodied, mediated interconnectedness, often within what Strauss would consider multiple “social worlds”. Reacting to the embrace of graphical simulation, the emergence of “virtual reality” and the promise of artificially intelligent agents, Gibson’s cyber (meaning helmsman in Greek) is the system that is in control that offers a place “jack in”, away from this corporeal world.

Cyberethnography”, by derivation and colloquial extraction, is the ethnography, the writing of the culture(s) of the computer mediated, tele-sociality of the physically disconnected.

We have been using ethnographic methods to paint in the details of these acts of interconnection in the context of the abstracted “global corporation” and “virtual” team. We ask: if work is in cyberspace, in virtual teams, what can we as ethnographers add to the understandings of such work, but also (being inevitably reflexive) what can we contribute to presenting the methods and representations of our own work. In our studies, where we triangulate online and offline observation, we find that people make sense of the world in familiar ways in both contexts – and that their actions are as bounded by what lies off-line as what occurs online. Although perhaps not a great surprise, this does have enormous implications for how we conduct our studies, what we can address and how we present our results.

We have been carrying out ethnographies of sociality in mediated contexts. In this paper we present highlights from three case studies, which we believe lie along a continuum of personal agency and control of the technology itself to manage the tele-mediated interaction: 1. distributed teams collaborating primarily through video conferences and email; 2. collaborative work in a text-based virtual environment; and 3. interactions in massively multiplayer environments, where collaboration and commerce are growing. In all three cases, we present an ecology of communication technologies, but focus on those through the lens of an ecology of flows, spaces, and connection practices.

These case studies are used to render visible the often tacit boundaries of ethnographic data collection methods and reportage. While we draw on methods in all cases that have been loosely called “cyber-ethnography”, interested as we are in sociality in mediated situations, we illustrate how an understanding of that which lies beyond the keyboard and screen frames what is understood, and therefore drives new forms of data analysis. Sometimes generating these understandings is positively maddening in its methodological complexity. Humans have always, in fact, lived lives beyond our gaze.

But in these studies, we have experienced restrictions at many levels which can be broadly characterized as 1. what can be recorded (logistically, it is getting increasingly important that we are very technically oriented to gather our data; many field sites in business contexts create restrictions that curtail broad data collection; many ethical issues arise); 2. what can be analysed (time is the biggest constraint in many business ethnography settings, and this is amplified in studying these distributed settings), and finally 3. what can be reported (in many settings what is seen cannot be reported or will not be heard).

What does this mean for what we understand of sociality, and what does it mean for reflection of what can and cannot, has and has not been inferred. Ultimately in this paper, we consider what are data, and who owns the data for consent to be given for its collection, analysis and reportage: what does it mean for an avatar, one persona of many even in an organization for example, to grant me permission to record? Just as technology-supported communication generates new work practices, we are experiencing the old phenomena of multiple selves in interaction in new worlds. This paper reflects on the issues involved. Each example will consider 1. the importance for work practice analysis, 2. the need for agility in method, and 3. the importance of deep analysis for patterns over time and technologies.